82.0°F Fair [Forecast]
:: Thursday, July 29th, 2010Wind Farmer's Almanac
... for news and views of the Cape Wind project you might not hear otherwise.Please visit these local CapeCodToday sponsors:
IRA Consultants, LLC
Your key to minimizing taxes and maximizing wealth. Visit our website for more info and a free consultation. (Chatham)
Your key to minimizing taxes and maximizing wealth. Visit our website for more info and a free consultation. (Chatham)
Color Me Mine
At Color Me Mine we feel it is important for children to learn about and experience the arts. We are committed to providing a forum for kids to express their creativity, to relax, have some fun and learn in a creative and pressure-free environment. (Mashpee)
At Color Me Mine we feel it is important for children to learn about and experience the arts. We are committed to providing a forum for kids to express their creativity, to relax, have some fun and learn in a creative and pressure-free environment. (Mashpee)
For Gore's critics, inconvenient corroboration - from climate scientists
06/29/06 · 2:07 pm :: posted by Jack Coleman
From a story published Tuesday by The Associated Press --
WASHINGTON -- The nation's top climate scientists are giving 'An Inconvenient Truth,' Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.
The former vice president's movie -- replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets -- mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.
According to the story, the AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by phone and email, among them "vocal skeptics of climate change theory." Most of those contacted have not read the book or seen the movie.
"But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels."
Here's what two of the scientists quoted in the story had to say --
"Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the important material and got it right."
Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group of scientists, read the book and saw Gore give the slideshow presentation that is woven throughout the documentary.
"I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and accurate," Corell said. (blogger's note - this is how the quote reads in the AP story; presumably Corell is saying '... how thorough and accurate it was ...'). "After the presentation I said, 'Al, I'm absolutely blown away. There's a lot of details you could get wrong.' ... I could find no error."
Which is not to say the documentary got it right across the board, the AP reports, but "the tiny errors scientists found weren't a big deal." Follow this link to read the story in its entirety.
More info on "An Inconvenient Truth" can be found at the website for the film, climatecrisis.net.
(photo credit, thespaceplace.com)
42 comments
Blog posts and comments are entirely the thoughts and ideas of the people who write them and in no way represent the views of CapeCodToday.com, eCape, Inc., or its employees or owners.
No one likes a: SMART ASS [Visitor] writes:
The most costly of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind. - H.L. Mencken
Believe what you want Neil... Personally, I think it best to try to do something about climate change... Whatever and as much as we can.
What is it going to do besides improve our lives?
Believe what you want Neil... Personally, I think it best to try to do something about climate change... Whatever and as much as we can.
What is it going to do besides improve our lives?
WB [Member] writes:
Neil, don't be anti-semantic ;>)
Jack Coleman [Member] writes:
Thanks for the heads-up on the spelling error, Neil. Where there is disagreement among scientists is not whether global warming is occurring, or whether our actions are exacerbating it, but to what extent human activities are making it worse and what actions we can take to mitigate it.
neil good [Member] writes:
The disagreement, as I see it, is over the claim that natural warming can be positively distinguished from warming caused by man. It cannot.
Jack Coleman [Member] writes:
Sounds eerily reminiscent of claims by the tobacco industry that lung cancer diagnosed in a four-pack-a-day smoker cannot be positively distinguished from lung cancer that may have occurred anyway.
Have you noticed how we don't hear claims like that much anymore, Neil? Within a few years, bold assertions that we can pump carbon into the atmosphere with impunity and without consequence will be just as rare.
Have you noticed how we don't hear claims like that much anymore, Neil? Within a few years, bold assertions that we can pump carbon into the atmosphere with impunity and without consequence will be just as rare.
neil good [Member] writes:
You may not run across that claim often, but it is still alive and well.
Someone else said not long ago,
"The GW debate doesn't need to follow the scientific method because liberals, who think they are smarter than normal people, figure we should just follow the 'litany' without question. After all, as they say; "the truth doesn't matter, we're out to save the world".
Someone else said not long ago,
"The GW debate doesn't need to follow the scientific method because liberals, who think they are smarter than normal people, figure we should just follow the 'litany' without question. After all, as they say; "the truth doesn't matter, we're out to save the world".
Mcfly [Member] writes:
Here is a different point of view and no less bias than the AP or Al Gore.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909
http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909
Jack Coleman [Member] writes:
It's a claim I run across less often than I used to, Neil, a trend I fully expect will continue until it's heard about as often as assertions that smoking is downright healthy.
Your last comment is based on the assumption that I'm a liberal. You are no more accurate about my political beliefs than you are about the alleged lack of evidence of human-induced climate change.
Your last comment is based on the assumption that I'm a liberal. You are no more accurate about my political beliefs than you are about the alleged lack of evidence of human-induced climate change.
Mcfly [Member] writes:
Jack your are is an opportunist in this blog topic. Al Gore's movie raises fear of something that we may or may not be able to do anything about. Of course, if people are afraid the Earth is melting they would be much more likely to approve and support your pet project the wind farm.
That's really what this blog post is about right, another reason we need Cape Wind?
I am always wearing of any studies when the people conducting the studies depend directly on their own conclusion for a pay check.
That's really what this blog post is about right, another reason we need Cape Wind?
I am always wearing of any studies when the people conducting the studies depend directly on their own conclusion for a pay check.
neil good [Member] writes:
Jack, I guess that cut and paste job did seem to imply I was suggesting things I know are not true about you.
Global Warming is a major debate, just like Cape Wind. But even if what you say is true, Cape Wind will do little or nothing to influence the climate.
Global Warming is a major debate, just like Cape Wind. But even if what you say is true, Cape Wind will do little or nothing to influence the climate.
Jack Coleman [Member] writes:
That's OK, Neil, I've been called worse. As far as your claim goes that Cape Wind will have little or no effect on global warming, by that logic none of us should recycle, switch to fluorescent bulbs (as suggested by Charles Vinick at the debate), maintain a compost bin, take mass transit instead of driving, etc., because in and of themselves, these actions are seemingly insignificant - except they're not.
Cape Wind and its supporters have stated repeatedly that Cape Wind is not the solution, it is one of many things we must do - all of which are opposed by political and economic entities with a vested interest in maintaining an unsustainable status quo.
In fact, when it comes to generating electricity, you would be hard pressed to find a better approach than to generate three-quarters of the electricity used by a quarter of a million people in the course of a year with no greenhouse gases, pollution or millions of gallons pumped in daily to cool the turbines, as required at fossil fuel and nuclear plants.
Cape Wind and its supporters have stated repeatedly that Cape Wind is not the solution, it is one of many things we must do - all of which are opposed by political and economic entities with a vested interest in maintaining an unsustainable status quo.
In fact, when it comes to generating electricity, you would be hard pressed to find a better approach than to generate three-quarters of the electricity used by a quarter of a million people in the course of a year with no greenhouse gases, pollution or millions of gallons pumped in daily to cool the turbines, as required at fossil fuel and nuclear plants.
Jack Coleman [Member] writes:
Thanks for your insight, McFly. Try again when you can achieve coherence.
Mcfly [Member] writes:
You are playing against peoples fears to further your own objective. Is that coherent enough?
No one likes a: SMART ASS [Visitor] writes:
How much fear is based in "Where there is smoke... There is pollution"?
The objective of reducing pollution is seemingly coherent enough to me.
No need to "play... against" anybody.
Only a fool would object.
The objective of reducing pollution is seemingly coherent enough to me.
No need to "play... against" anybody.
Only a fool would object.
Monponsett [Member] writes:
Al should figure out how he lost an election while winning the popular vote before he tries to save the rest of us.
Jack Coleman [Member] writes:
Much better, McFly, thanks for putting in the effort. If there is no basis for what Gore is saying - along with the 19-for-19 climate scientists in the AP story who agree with him - then there would be no basis for people to be fearful about this. Unfortunately, there is a basis for what Gore, and numerous climate scientists extending far beyond the AP story, are saying. Suggesting we all stick our heads in the sand is probably not the way to go when confronted with a serious threat.
neil good [Member] writes:
I’ve noticed that nearly all AP stories about global warming are heavy on doom and gloom.
Recycling, switching to fluorescent bulbs, maintaining a compost pile, riding mass transit, are all low impact ways to improve the environment. Even if Cape Wind was a step in that direction it is a high impact ‘solution.’ Compared to its costs to the public, its benefits are minor in my opinion.
In theory wind power may seem to be an ideal way to generate electricity, but in practice it is not at all. Because of its unreliability, wind power cannot provide base load power.
And the often-heard spin about “free fuel with locked in rates”? Look what happened to Airtricity in Ireland. In February they had to advise their residential customers to switch to other electric providers, because Airtricity rates were heading through the roof.
Recycling, switching to fluorescent bulbs, maintaining a compost pile, riding mass transit, are all low impact ways to improve the environment. Even if Cape Wind was a step in that direction it is a high impact ‘solution.’ Compared to its costs to the public, its benefits are minor in my opinion.
In theory wind power may seem to be an ideal way to generate electricity, but in practice it is not at all. Because of its unreliability, wind power cannot provide base load power.
And the often-heard spin about “free fuel with locked in rates”? Look what happened to Airtricity in Ireland. In February they had to advise their residential customers to switch to other electric providers, because Airtricity rates were heading through the roof.
Mcfly [Member] writes:
Some questions. MARC MORANO,MATT DEMPSEY
The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP’s bias and methodology.
AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”
In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific “skeptics” they claim to have contacted.
The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation
The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP’s bias and methodology.
AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”
In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific “skeptics” they claim to have contacted.
The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation
Mcfly [Member] writes:
of the former Vice President. In addition, Correll’s reported links as an “affiliate” of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides “expert testimony” in trials and his reported sponsorship by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP. See http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm
The AP also chose to ignore Gore’s reliance on the now-discredited “hockey stick” by Dr. Michael Mann, which claims that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century, and that the 1990’s were the warmest decade in at least 1000 years. Last week’s National Academy of Sciences report dispelled Mann’s often cited claims by reaffirming the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. See Senator Inhofe’s statement on the broken “Hockey Stick.” (http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697 )
The AP also chose to ignore Gore’s reliance on the now-discredited “hockey stick” by Dr. Michael Mann, which claims that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century, and that the 1990’s were the warmest decade in at least 1000 years. Last week’s National Academy of Sciences report dispelled Mann’s often cited claims by reaffirming the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. See Senator Inhofe’s statement on the broken “Hockey Stick.” (http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697 )
Mcfly [Member] writes:
Gore’s claim that global warming is causing the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro to disappear has also been debunked by scientific reports. For example, a 2004 study in the journal Nature makes clear that Kilimanjaro is experiencing less snowfall because there’s less moisture in the air due to deforestation around Kilimanjaro.
Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote:
“A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.” - Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal
Gore’s film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect.
There is more.....
Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote:
“A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.” - Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal
Gore’s film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect.
There is more.....
Mcfly [Member] writes:
“…A study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.”- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal.
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film:
“…Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?”- Roy Spencer wrote in a May 25, 2006 column.
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film:
“…Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?”- Roy Spencer wrote in a May 25, 2006 column.
Mcfly [Member] writes:
Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to Gore’s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970.
"The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology,” –Tim Ball said, according to the Canadian Free Press.
Of course none of this will ever see the light of a newspaper because it doesn't fit the template of doom and gloom media, but I had to post it to rebut the AP story which Coleman feels is creditable and I feel is not.
"The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology,” –Tim Ball said, according to the Canadian Free Press.
Of course none of this will ever see the light of a newspaper because it doesn't fit the template of doom and gloom media, but I had to post it to rebut the AP story which Coleman feels is creditable and I feel is not.
Chuck Kleekamp [Member] writes:
The fuss about who’s right on the issue of global warming is becoming as intractable as the fuss about evolution. Those who firmly believe on one side of the debate will not likely ever change their personal opinion and it is futile and a waste of time to debate the evidence.
As an anonymous statistician once said: “Those with data have the facts, all others have an opinion.”
As far as wind power being intermittent therefore not useful is bogus. There are many gap fillers. Wind could easily replace 20% of the nations electrical demand while using gas or oil fired combustion turbines as peaker units or even better, pumped storage hydro systems that pump water up to a reservoir when wind power is in excess, hence low cost, then reverse as hydro generators when a gap or peak needs to be filled. You can’t store electricity on the grid, but you can store energy in the form of natural gas and oil or elevated water.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
As an anonymous statistician once said: “Those with data have the facts, all others have an opinion.”
As far as wind power being intermittent therefore not useful is bogus. There are many gap fillers. Wind could easily replace 20% of the nations electrical demand while using gas or oil fired combustion turbines as peaker units or even better, pumped storage hydro systems that pump water up to a reservoir when wind power is in excess, hence low cost, then reverse as hydro generators when a gap or peak needs to be filled. You can’t store electricity on the grid, but you can store energy in the form of natural gas and oil or elevated water.
Regards,
Chuck Kleekamp
neil good [Member] writes:
Chuck,
I said wind power could not provide base load power. That's a fact isn’t it?
And wind power will always remain intermittent, which does cut into its usefulness.
It’s also highly improbable that wind can ‘easily’ replace 20% of the nation’s electrical demand. The costs, including grid upgrades and having those gap fillers you describe always on standby would be extremely high.
I know that you and other wind advocates believe 20% has been ‘achieved’ in Denmark, but convincing proof has not been published. There is plenty of propaganda on the other hand about how wonderful those 5550+ wind turbines in Denmark supposedly are. They probably produce only about 5-8% of the nation’s power, and people in Denmark are catching on.
I said wind power could not provide base load power. That's a fact isn’t it?
And wind power will always remain intermittent, which does cut into its usefulness.
It’s also highly improbable that wind can ‘easily’ replace 20% of the nation’s electrical demand. The costs, including grid upgrades and having those gap fillers you describe always on standby would be extremely high.
I know that you and other wind advocates believe 20% has been ‘achieved’ in Denmark, but convincing proof has not been published. There is plenty of propaganda on the other hand about how wonderful those 5550+ wind turbines in Denmark supposedly are. They probably produce only about 5-8% of the nation’s power, and people in Denmark are catching on.
Jack Coleman [Member] writes:
You're right, Neil, wind will always remain intermittent and this reduces the extent to which we can benefit from its use. Its inherent intermittence has not, however, prevented the Kennedys, Bill Koch and many others from shelling out gobs of money on sailboats to frolic in places like, say, Nantucket Sound.
That wind power cannot provide base load power would be a problem if we were to rely exclusively on wind for electricity. Neither Cape Wind nor any other advocates for wind energy are suggesting we do this. If I am mistaken, Neil, please cite where that claim has been made.
As for your assertion that people in Denmark are "catching on" to wind power, this helps explain why the Danes are moving forward with plans to double the size of the two biggest offshore wind farms in the world.
The extent to which turbines are built offshore limits the number needed on land, and older, less efficient turbines are the first to be retired when new offshore turbines are built.
That wind power cannot provide base load power would be a problem if we were to rely exclusively on wind for electricity. Neither Cape Wind nor any other advocates for wind energy are suggesting we do this. If I am mistaken, Neil, please cite where that claim has been made.
As for your assertion that people in Denmark are "catching on" to wind power, this helps explain why the Danes are moving forward with plans to double the size of the two biggest offshore wind farms in the world.
The extent to which turbines are built offshore limits the number needed on land, and older, less efficient turbines are the first to be retired when new offshore turbines are built.
Jack Coleman [Member] writes:
"Only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all," McFly writes, citing an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal about the journal Science article. Wow, "only" 913 of 928 - a mere 98 percent. Would that Cape Wind opponents were anywhere near this accurate.
The op-ed cited by McFly goes on to claim that "only 13" of the "remaining" 913 articles "explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view" on global warming.
But that's not what Gore said about the Science article, nor what the article itself stated, as I recall from the movie. What was stated was that none of the articles rejected the premise that human-induced activity is contributing to global warming - an important difference.
If the journal Science was in error, and Gore by extension, for not citing the number of articles expressing skepticism about the "so-called consensus view," that should be corrected. Oddly enough, the writer of the WSJ op-ed fails to cite the exact number of scientists expressing this skepticism, instead resorting to a vague "several."
The op-ed cited by McFly goes on to claim that "only 13" of the "remaining" 913 articles "explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view" on global warming.
But that's not what Gore said about the Science article, nor what the article itself stated, as I recall from the movie. What was stated was that none of the articles rejected the premise that human-induced activity is contributing to global warming - an important difference.
If the journal Science was in error, and Gore by extension, for not citing the number of articles expressing skepticism about the "so-called consensus view," that should be corrected. Oddly enough, the writer of the WSJ op-ed fails to cite the exact number of scientists expressing this skepticism, instead resorting to a vague "several."
Mcfly [Member] writes:
Why would anyone flat out reject the premise that human activity is contributing to global warming when it cannot be proven false or true.
Just because scientists do not reject a hypothesis doesn't mean they support it either. I think we covered that in 7th grade science class.
The fact is that there is just enough debate for scaremongers to use whatever they can to make a buck and not enough science to stop the exploitation by disingenuous people.
Just because scientists do not reject a hypothesis doesn't mean they support it either. I think we covered that in 7th grade science class.
The fact is that there is just enough debate for scaremongers to use whatever they can to make a buck and not enough science to stop the exploitation by disingenuous people.
Jack Coleman [Member] writes:
Right, McFly - just as tobacco industry apologists used to claim it was impossible to prove that four packs of Camels a day brought about any specific case of lung cancer. Say, did you happen to notice how few people are smoking Camels these days?
As to your claim that it "cannot be proven false or true" that human activity is contributing to global warming, this is based on what, wishful thinking on your part?
As to your claim that it "cannot be proven false or true" that human activity is contributing to global warming, this is based on what, wishful thinking on your part?
neil good [Member] writes:
But those sailboats are only for recreation. All sailors know you can’t count on the wind. That’s why sailboats have auxiliary engines on board. Many Fugawi racers found they needed to rely on fossil fuel this year to get home. There was little or no wind.
I’m not saying anyone has suggested wind power can provide base load power. Even well informed wind supporters know that’s impossible, and uninformed wind supporters don’t know what base load power is. Many wind skeptics don’t know either.
But it’s implied that wind power is a good thing, and that it should be encouraged wherever it will fit. I say wind power is not always a good thing and it does not go well with Nantucket Sound.
The Danes are tired of all the windmills on land and they have started to send them out to sea. That is true. They admit it.
Where has it been "proven" that human activity is contributing to global warming?
I’m not saying anyone has suggested wind power can provide base load power. Even well informed wind supporters know that’s impossible, and uninformed wind supporters don’t know what base load power is. Many wind skeptics don’t know either.
But it’s implied that wind power is a good thing, and that it should be encouraged wherever it will fit. I say wind power is not always a good thing and it does not go well with Nantucket Sound.
The Danes are tired of all the windmills on land and they have started to send them out to sea. That is true. They admit it.
Where has it been "proven" that human activity is contributing to global warming?
Mcfly [Member] writes:
Neil you don't get it, Coleman, Al Gore and others have said it's true so it must be. Even though all scientist use words like probably, most likely, and could be, which are not factual statements, just opinions.
So smoking causes cancer, true, however the earth has warmed and cooled for a trillion years over and over again. How long have people been on earth? How many years have we been burning fossil fuels in mass? Not long enough to conclude that it's humans that have caused this cycle of warming or to conclude that this is not just a normal cycle. Unless of course there is money to be made, then of course, it's fossil fuels causing the warming and we need a wind farm to help stop the warming. Nobody knows for sure and I have yet to read any study that says conclusively anything to the contrary.
So smoking causes cancer, true, however the earth has warmed and cooled for a trillion years over and over again. How long have people been on earth? How many years have we been burning fossil fuels in mass? Not long enough to conclude that it's humans that have caused this cycle of warming or to conclude that this is not just a normal cycle. Unless of course there is money to be made, then of course, it's fossil fuels causing the warming and we need a wind farm to help stop the warming. Nobody knows for sure and I have yet to read any study that says conclusively anything to the contrary.
Jack Coleman [Member] writes:
No, Neil, what you are suggesting is that since wind power cannot provide base load power, it is utterly without value. This is like saying that a bicycle cannot be used for transportation because it can't hit 60 on the highway.
Not all sailboats have engines, incidentally. Years ago my family owned a catboat and it never had an engine. In decades of sailing on Buzzards Bay, I recall only two occasions when we needed a tow after the wind died. Most good sailors know when conditions are good for sailing, and when they can venture far from shore. The wind is to natives of the Cape what snow is to Eskimos; it's in our blood.
As for sailboats being used "only" for recreation, this is a modern phenomenon. For thousands of years before the modern era, sailing vessels were used for fishing, hauling goods, military purposes and the like. There wasn't much recreation involved.
As for the proof of global warming you seek, the same documentary we both saw last week laid out the evidence in a well-documented and compelling manner. Clearly it made little impression on you.
Not all sailboats have engines, incidentally. Years ago my family owned a catboat and it never had an engine. In decades of sailing on Buzzards Bay, I recall only two occasions when we needed a tow after the wind died. Most good sailors know when conditions are good for sailing, and when they can venture far from shore. The wind is to natives of the Cape what snow is to Eskimos; it's in our blood.
As for sailboats being used "only" for recreation, this is a modern phenomenon. For thousands of years before the modern era, sailing vessels were used for fishing, hauling goods, military purposes and the like. There wasn't much recreation involved.
As for the proof of global warming you seek, the same documentary we both saw last week laid out the evidence in a well-documented and compelling manner. Clearly it made little impression on you.
neil good [Member] writes:
Very little fishing or hauling of cargo is done by sail anymore. The age of sail ended a long time ago. The mad rush to put up wind turbines will end too. The wind cannot be relied on to run anything by schedule. Even Greenpeace seems to have given up using sails on the Rainbow Warrior. The Arctic Sunrise is powered by diesel fuel.
Al Gore’s movie did make an impression on me- I’m more convinced than before that global warming is not a threat.
I saw his powerpoint show long before I saw the movie, and I saw problems in both.
Al Gore’s movie did make an impression on me- I’m more convinced than before that global warming is not a threat.
I saw his powerpoint show long before I saw the movie, and I saw problems in both.
No one likes a: SMART ASS [Visitor] writes:
I don't really care if the sea level rises a foot or so... I'm well above that in C-ville.
Would probably get a smile from me if many of those opposed along the shoreline got swamped when the ice really begins to melt...
It's coming sooner than they would like to think.
Screw em.
Would probably get a smile from me if many of those opposed along the shoreline got swamped when the ice really begins to melt...
It's coming sooner than they would like to think.
Screw em.
Jack Coleman [Member] writes:
Neil, that's why I used the phrase pre-modern to describe vessels relying on wind for fishing, transport, etc. The age of sail has passed; the age of sailing, hardly. Your fervent belief that wind cannot provide anything of benefit to humanity is refuted not only by the abundant use of windmills in earlier times across this blustery peninsula, but by the favorite pastimes of two of Cape Wind's staunchest opponents - Ted Kennedy and Bill Koch.
In case you've forgotten, Koch won the America's Cup, the premiere sailing competition in the world, back in 1992, I believe it was. Safe to say he has spent a considerable amount of money over the years pursuing this beloved pastime, as have the Kennedys.
Presumably they would not have done so if wind were anywhere near as unreliable as you claim.
In case you've forgotten, Koch won the America's Cup, the premiere sailing competition in the world, back in 1992, I believe it was. Safe to say he has spent a considerable amount of money over the years pursuing this beloved pastime, as have the Kennedys.
Presumably they would not have done so if wind were anywhere near as unreliable as you claim.
Mcfly [Member] writes:
The man who claimed to invet the internet is the reason we should all fear that global warming is mankinds fault and that soon Kansas will be ocean front property!
Is this a joke? Am I on candid camera?
Is this a joke? Am I on candid camera?
neil good [Member] writes:
I’ve never said wind cannot provide benefits. It’s terrific for recreational and sporting events or pastimes as you point out. I say it’s just not very good, maybe even terrible, for providing power for things that have to be done on a reliable/demanding schedule. Shipping companies found that out a long time ago.
I’ve never heard anyone say generating electricity was a pastime.
I’ve never heard anyone say generating electricity was a pastime.
No one likes a: SMART ASS [Visitor] writes:
Jack... Why are you bothering to commumicate with these *ucknuts?
Sex with a woman is much more pleasurable...
For that matter... A fine tuned fart will do the job just fine if you need a release.
Give it up... You cannot talk sense to nonsense. Blow it up there's... Is the best you can do.
Sex with a woman is much more pleasurable...
For that matter... A fine tuned fart will do the job just fine if you need a release.
Give it up... You cannot talk sense to nonsense. Blow it up there's... Is the best you can do.
Mcfly [Member] writes:
Good idea Peckham give up the scare tactics, they are impossible to prove anyways.
Mcfly [Member] writes:
Do you beleive Al Gore the man who "invented the Internet" or Mr. Lindzen the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
Read his Op Ed
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
Read his Op Ed
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
neil good [Member] writes:
I believe Lindzen.
In his movie, Al tells a story where his sixth grade teacher knows nothing about the continental drift theory. He lost me right there. The ‘drift’ theory was a huge deal in the media and elsewhere in the 1950’s and 1960’s. I bet it was part of Al Gore’s elementary school science curriculum, just like it was in my school.
Al changes facts or ignores them when they conflict with his crusade, but he means well and I still like him.
In his movie, Al tells a story where his sixth grade teacher knows nothing about the continental drift theory. He lost me right there. The ‘drift’ theory was a huge deal in the media and elsewhere in the 1950’s and 1960’s. I bet it was part of Al Gore’s elementary school science curriculum, just like it was in my school.
Al changes facts or ignores them when they conflict with his crusade, but he means well and I still like him.
Please visit these local CapeCodToday sponsors:
Cape Cod Rentals: Leighton Realty
Leighton Realty Rentals is owner operated and provides services to renters and owners on Cape Cod since 2003. Take a look at our large inventory of both vacation and year round rentals or call our friendly staff to find the perfect rental for you. (Brewster)
Leighton Realty Rentals is owner operated and provides services to renters and owners on Cape Cod since 2003. Take a look at our large inventory of both vacation and year round rentals or call our friendly staff to find the perfect rental for you. (Brewster)
Dennis Equipment Company
Offering the best lawnmowers, tractors, snowblowers and professional equipment available. Sales and service. (Dennis)
Offering the best lawnmowers, tractors, snowblowers and professional equipment available. Sales and service. (Dennis)
IMPORTANT NOTICE FOR COMMENTORS & BLOGGERS: CapeCodToday now requires a one-time validation of your
account email. When logging in or registering for the first time, you will be emailed a link to click that will validate your
email and complete your login. The link in the email must be clicked in the same session when you are logged into the site for security purposes
(i.e. retrieve the email right away and do not close your web browser).
This is a one-time-only process (or if you change the email on your account), and will help CCToday keep out the spammers. If you cannot validate your email because it is invalid, and you are a legitimate user, feel free to contact us and we will update your account to your current email.
This is a one-time-only process (or if you change the email on your account), and will help CCToday keep out the spammers. If you cannot validate your email because it is invalid, and you are a legitimate user, feel free to contact us and we will update your account to your current email.
Please Login or Register to leave a comment. There are 4,881 registered commenters!
CapeCodToday requires readers register an account with us in order to post comments. Become a trusted commenter and receive the benefits of posting instantly throughout the site. It's quick and easy!
Please note: If you are a CapeCodToday registered blogger, you can use your blogger login. Your login for the blogs is separate from your CapeCodToday main site login (if you have one).
Previous/Next posts in this blog
About This Blog
A Bourne native, Jack Coleman is a writer, editor and blogger who began writing about the Cape Wind project in November 2001 at the Cape Cod Times, where he worked as a reporter and bureau chief. He and his wife and their two children live in Plymouth, along with their Burmese cat, Tug. Read his archives here. Jack's email address is polnotes@yahoo.com
Recent Comments
- Hey bitter,
Stran It seems I've been mysteriously placed on the
16 mins ago - Yes, what we need to figure out is who's interest
48 mins ago - "Also, lets not forget about the billions of dollars your
51 mins ago - Oh boy-you reminded me of something with that one crusader!
56 mins ago - Stupid immigrants....
57 mins ago
- site sponsors -
CCT Blog List
Blogs with posts in the past 60 days are listed here in order of newest posts. For a list of all blogs, visit Blogs A to Z
- Newest Blog Posts
- Newest Comments
- TRB
- Entering Bourne
- Joe's Blog
- Seufert's Scenes
- The Belly Check
- CapeCodToday Featured Event
- EXTRA...
- Long Bridge Runner
- Cape Cod History
- Cape Cod Rock Hopper
- Latimer on Law
- Fox Robbins Business Blog
- Cape Politics
- Police and Fire News
- Town Notes
- Politicalendar
- Soaring with David Gessner
- Bismore Park
- Cape & Islands News
- Travel Tales
- In My Footsteps
- Business on Cape Cod
- Letters to the Editor
- The Ballyard
- One Day at a Time
- Resolute
- Conservative's Conscience
- Entering Falmouth
- The Poet's Perspective
- Cape Yoga
- Off-the-Shelf
- Cape Cod Tracker
- Buckley's Blog
- Cape Eyes
- Trail Hound
- Cape Cod Performing Arts
- State of Cape Cod
- Editorial
- Ned Sonntag
- Wellfleet Bay Sanctuary
- Three plus lives
- Rob O'Leary's Blog
- Cape Native
- College Chat with Christine Chapman
- Dan Wolf's Blog
- My day
- Boston Cod
- Reflections on a Quarter-life Crisis
- Cape Cod Barrister
- Cape Wind Conversation
- On the Campaign Trail with Bill
- Cape Cod Book Reviews
- Sea Street
- Media Watch
- Cape Fine Dining
- Citizen Kane
- Mercy Otis
- Speaking Turtle's Cafe
- Cape Cod Pets
- Energy Media
- Housing Assistance Corporation Media Blog
- Op-Ed
Archives
- July 2006 (3)
- June 2006 (24)
- May 2006 (9)
- January 2006 (17)
- December 2005 (13)
- November 2005 (22)
- October 2005 (10)
Become a CapeCodToday Blogger!
Are you passionate about your community? Do you blog or at least harbor thoughts of doing so?
If so, CapeCodToday.com would like to host your blog on our CapeCodToday weblog publishing platform.
Blog Newsfeed
CapeCodToday uses standard web "newsfeeds" (RSS) to automatically update the latest blog entries in your browser or newsreader.
Use any of the links below in your newsreader or web browser to get "Wind Farmer's Almanac" postings delivered to you, or use the RSS icon in your browser's address bar.
It's 'correctly', but other scientists say 'no' he did not.